Iceland proves humanity cannot cause global warming

[Soutane]

Iceland proves humanity cannot cause global warming Written by Leslie Eastman, San Diego News | 23 April 2010

As an environmental health and safety professional, I have been quizzed by friends about what is occurring with Iceland’s volcanic eruptions. Many people are extremely interested in volcanoes. I know the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens inspired me to obtain my degree in geology. With that in mind, I wanted to share some interesting history, scientific data, and perspective about the recent geologic activity.

I also want to demonstrate the enormous impact that intense geologic activity has had on Earth’s biosystems.

The recent Climate-gate scandal, which involved the discovery that fraudulent carbon dioxide data was used to promote the erroneous premise of man-made global cooling, angers me as a scientist. While I appreciate the need to maintain the best, healthiest environment possible, humanity cannot have the global impact purported by environmental extremists. There are, however, real global climate-change hazards that should be studied. Ensuring that real scientific data and facts are utilized to inform citizens and make policy is one of part of citizen activism I fully embrace.

Looking at Iceland’s history, one feature that is striking is that many of the island’s eruptions occur over prolonged periods of time. Unlike Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Pinatubo (two rather famous volcanoes that erupted in recent times), Iceland’s eruptions are not a one-off event. To put it into geographic perspective, Iceland is a hotspot (an area of intense, local volcanism resulting from a plume of magma) over the splitting mid-Atlantic ridge (where the ocean plate is being spread apart).
climatechangefraud.com/behind-the-science/6842-iceland-proves-humanity-cannot-cause-global-warming

 

[Dale_M]

As an environmental health and safety professional…

That says a lot right there. EHS has to do with workplace conditions, not global physical phenomena. In other words, she is no more an authority on global climate than anyone here at CAF.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

I believe catastrophic natural events like the Iceland eruptions prove humanity can neither prevent nor cause to any significant degree global climate change, global warming, whatever the PC term is today. The Earth has gone through several of these cycles over the Milena without our help and will continue to do so regardless of our help.

I’m an Aerospace Engineer and Physical Anthropologist so I suppose my opinion is automatically discredited as well?

 

[Soutane]

That says a lot right there. EHS has to do with workplace conditions, not global physical phenomena. In other words, she is no more an authority on global climate than anyone here at CAF.

True believers will NEVER be convinced no matter what the evidence.

 

[Darryl1958]

I believe catastrophic natural events like the Iceland eruptions prove humanity can neither prevent nor cause to any significant degree global climate change, global warming, whatever the PC term is today. The Earth has gone through several of these cycles over the Milena without our help and will continue to do so regardless of our help.

I’m an Aerospace Engineer and Physical Anthropologist so I suppose my opinion is automatically discredited as well?

I think most climate change experts would even agree that even if the Kyoto agreement they advocated had actually been 100% enacted, the changes to the climate that would have resulted would have been miniscule. Trillions would be spent for no appreciable result.

“But we have to start somewhere” is the ‘scientfic’ explanation that is given.

We people by and large are really uncomfortable with not being the masters of our own destiny. So we do our rain dances, in the magical hopes that doing something is better than doing nothing at all.

That is all well and fine as far as it goes. However, it would be ludicrous to completely dismantle entire economies for the minimal effects on the climate that even our best efforts are going to have. We must remember that is is all a rain dance after all. Asteroids will still fall from the sky in due course.

Cheaper, greener, more efficient, cleaner technologies are in everyone’s interest. A little bit of perspective and balance as to how we achieve those goals is really what opposition to the global warming hysteria is all about.

 

[Digitonomy]

That says a lot right there. EHS has to do with workplace conditions, not global physical phenomena. In other words, she is no more an authority on global climate than anyone here at CAF.

Yeah, I thought that was strange, too. It could be that she’s deliberately misleading readers as to what her field involves, but I would like to think that somehow her job is pertinent to the topic. I’m stymied how that can be, however, unless she works on environmental health and safety for volcanologists. Maybe she really means “As a person with a geology degree, I’m often asked what’s going on with Iceland’s volcano.”

A web search of her name turns up a blog she’s involved in, but no useful details about her job or background.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m an Aerospace Engineer and Physical Anthropologist so I suppose my opinion is automatically discredited as well?

Yep. Unless you are a former Vice President or an angry liberal, your point is worth nothing…you’re on the take from the oil companies, aren’t you? Just admit it!

 

[Digitonomy]

I believe catastrophic natural events like the Iceland eruptions prove humanity can neither prevent nor cause to any significant degree global climate change, global warming, whatever the PC term is today.

I don’t think this is a very good argument. It may be that humanity can neither prevent nor cause any climate change. But whether it can or can’t doesn’t seem to me dependent on whether there are volcanic eruptions in Iceland. Applying the same faulty logic on a smaller scale, one could say that because lightning sometimes strikes homes and burns them down, it proves that humans cannot burn down homes.

 

[Prof_K]

Unfortunatley, global warming is one of those issues on which I just don’t have the background to understand the evidence. On such issue areas, I tend to rely on experts, but because the experts in this particular area seem more concerned about politic wins than the truth, it can be very difficult. I do have questions though, that possibly Bob, or someone with more scientific background than mine can answer. Which particularants are thought to be the greatest cause of global warming/cooling? How many parts per million are they? Is human activity or natural (meaning just non-human) biological and geological activity a greater cause of these? Is the earth in a natural warming or cooling cycle. Finally, how great are the affects of the changes in sunspot activity relative to changes in earth’s atmosphere? Is the science now settled on any of these major issues?

I have honestly given up trying to follow these debates. So can anyone show me an article that provides a useful, comprehendable, yet honest analysis of the state of our knowledge, I would appreciate a link. When I have tried searching these issues, I typically only find people trying to persuade me of one side or the other, with few real attempts to just present what we actually know so far.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Yep. Unless you are a former Vice President or an angry liberal, your point is worth nothing…you’re on the take from the oil companies, aren’t you? Just admit it!

I wish LOL. How does one get on the hand-out list anyway?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The idea of mans involvement has always been a Topic of debate. Many believe Global Warming is a fabricated notion created by man with no consistant facts to back it.

 

[Dale_M]

help.
I’m an Aerospace Engineer and Physical Anthropologist so I suppose my opinion is automatically discredited as well?

Not discredited, just that those qualifications don’t necessarily mean you are an authority in the field. The author of the article mentions her job as if that somehow gives her special insight or knowledge. And it doesn’t.

She opens her article with what comes across to me as an intentional deception. Many people are unacquainted with the field of Environmental Health and Safety, and might reasonably believe from her statement that “Environmental Health” has something to do with the environment of the world, making her some kind of expert. This bit of subterfuge, I think, undermines her credibility.

 

[rlg94086]

Not discredited, just that those qualifications don’t necessarily mean you are an authority in the field. The author of the article mentions her job as if that somehow gives her special insight or knowledge. And it doesn’t.

She opens her article with what comes across to me as an intentional deception. Many people are unacquainted with the field of Environmental Health and Safety, and might reasonably believe from her statement that “Environmental Health” has something to do with the environment of the world, making her some kind of expert. This bit of subterfuge, I think, undermines her credibility.

You’re judging her intent? That’s nice.

Did she claim to be an expert? Would it be better if she just didn’t state her background? I would think it is helpful that someone tells you their training and that their degree is in Geology. She certainly has more credibility on the subject than this humble poster on CAF - salesman, no scientific degree…

 

[Dale_M]

Did she claim to be an expert?

Yes, she did. She opened her article with the statement “As an environmental health and safety professional…” That is a declaration that she has expertise on this subject.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, she did. She opened her article with the statement “As an environmental health and safety professional…” That is a declaration that she has expertise on this subject.

It does? “As an environmental health and safety professional, I have been quizzed by friends…” I don’t see it. Anyway, all you have so far is ad hominem argument, so I guess there is no point in going further with this. Or, do you have a counterargument to her point? If so, what are your credentials?

 

[Dale_M]

It does? “As an environmental health and safety professional, I have been quizzed by friends…” I don’t see it.

You know, what her statement reminds me of? The commercial, from many years ago, of an actor in a white lab coat, in some kind of a hospital setting. The actor says: “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV…” and then goes on to pitch the wonders of some over the counter medicine.

Her job does not give her any expertise in the field of global environmental science. If her friends didn’t understand that, she could have informed them of it. There is absolutely no reason for her to make the comment unless she was suggesting that her job, in actuality, did give her expertise.

 

[Zatzat]

Of course there will be fringe groups who appose the majority opinion within the scientific community. The OP of this thread is one of them and quite frankly, is as compelling as a 911’er.

 

[Soutane]

I think most climate change experts would even agree that even if the Kyoto agreement they advocated had actually been 100% enacted, the changes to the climate that would have resulted would have been miniscule. Trillions would be spent for no appreciable result.

“But we have to start somewhere” is the ‘scientfic’ explanation that is given.

We people by and large are really uncomfortable with not being the masters of our own destiny. So we do our rain dances, in the magical hopes that doing something is better than doing nothing at all.

That is all well and fine as far as it goes. However, it would be ludicrous to completely dismantle entire economies for the minimal effects on the climate that even our best efforts are going to have. We must remember that is is all a rain dance after all. Asteroids will still fall from the sky in due course.

Cheaper, greener, more efficient, cleaner technologies are in everyone’s interest. A little bit of perspective and balance as to how we achieve those goals is really what opposition to the global warming hysteria is all about.

Perfect!Rain dances indeed.
Since the fall of communism and the discrediting of socialism(communism dressed as Batman)the left and their running dog liberal “useful idiots” have had to create a new ISM in order that that elite can control you,your pocketbook,your speech and your thoughts.
It’s called the Sky-is Fallingism or radical environmentalism.Read the communist/socialist handbook some day-create a crisis,then manufacture consent and then you’ve got your zombies!It’s all about contol which is something liberals CRAVE-they’re not happy unless they’re telling someone else how to live like Al Gore whose carbon footprint is massive.Google his mansion.
First it was “global warming” then when it got colder it segued into “climate change”.Whatever you call it it’s a fraud-remember the acid rain scam of twenty years ago?Liberals always act as if the arguement is “settled”(in their favour of course)This arguement hasn’t even begun and watch out if you dare argue with them they’ll use the “D” word or the “R” word-dinosaur and reactionary.Silly ad hominum “rebuttals”.The Icelandic eruption just blew Kyoto and its successor out of the water.
I live in a cool climate on the North shore of Lake Erie 20 miles from Buffalo.Every spring due to frost heave(I live right on top of the onadaga escarpment)I have to pick fossilized CORAL out of my lawn-would you like some,I’ve got BAGS of it.The climate has been changing for 5 billion years.When Lief Ericson settled in Iceland you could grow grapes!
It’s all about CONTROL.

 

[Soutane]

I’m all for energy saving simply because the government has made it so expensive and the thieves on Wall street and Bay street.
So you buy an electric car,then EVERYONE buys an electric car.What happens to govennment revenues-they plummet,gas and oil people lose jobs,no more gas stations-kids lose jobs-massive unemployment.Then watch your electricity bill skyrocket and annually a government inspector(at the same time you renew your tags)will count the number of kilometers or miles driven and send YOU a huge tax bill probably higher than the taxes you spend on oil and gas now for all the unemployment and welfare checks for the newly unemployed.
The government and the Left is counting on your inability to see past your nose.The air won’t even be cleaner because massive amounts of coal(google Nanticoke)will have to be burned to acquire and satisfy this new demand for electricity.
Where is nuclear fusion?Where are cars that run on water-what a joke.

 

[Zatzat]

Perfect!Rain dances indeed.
Since the fall of communism and the discrediting of socialism(communism dressed as Batman)the left and their running dog liberal “useful idiots” have had to create a new ISM in order that that elite can control you,your pocketbook,your speech and your thoughts.
It’s called the Sky-is Fallingism or radical environmentalism.Read the communist/socialist handbook some day-create a crisis,then manufacture consent and then you’ve got your zombies!It’s all about contol which is something liberals CRAVE-they’re not happy unless they’re telling someone else how to live…

I could say the same thing about religion.